Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: What's wrong with Socialism?
Thread: What's wrong with Socialism? This thread is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 · «PREV / NEXT»
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted May 17, 2010 09:50 AM

I haven't been following much of this, but what's this talk about profit being useless? Profit is not only useful, it's necessary. Without profit you can't increase the standard of living. Nor can you grow the population while  maintaining the same standard of living. Without profit the economy stagnates.

For any type of expansion whatsoever, profit is necessary to facilitate that expansion. Expansion of economy basically translates to increased standard of living, whether that means having more or better stuff, more or better food, a larger home, advances in technology that make our lives easier/healthier, or anything else that improves our lives in some way. Profit is the excess that's beyond the current needs. Profit is what's reinvested to create newer, easier, better, or more than what we currently have.

Here's a very oversimplified example. Farmer Smith lives in a community of 50 people. The economy is in balance. Farmer Smith grows just enough crops to feed the people and keep enough seed for next year's crop. He has no excess food or seed (no profit). Now a newlywed couple has a baby, so there are now 51 people. That new baby can't be fed because Farmer Smith had no profit. He had no excess food to feed the baby, nor did he have excess seed or land to plant more crops for next year. When the baby was born, there was a net decrease in the per capita standard of living because the same amount of food is now divided into 51 parts instead of 50 parts.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 17, 2010 10:32 AM

You are of course right, Binabik; but "profit" is a very unspecific  word.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted May 17, 2010 11:12 AM

Quote:
DF:
The problem with "abolishing inequality" is that under socialism it's achieved by dragging the top down rather than brining the bottom up. In the year 5000, when each poor person has 12 mansions and each rich person will have a micro-planet, socialists will still be complaining about inequality.


Obviously such a scenario is impossible
Don't you think there should be a limit to what a wealthy man CAN do?
It's not about taking away his money or making him poor, I think, but about effectively limiting him not to become the demigod he can become in capitalism.
And since his kids inherit his cash and success... well, that's the problem for me. Heritage. Say what you want, but I don't like the fact that some kids get massive $$$ bonus along with a nice house somewhere in the future while the others get ****.
Too bad it can't be prevented, socialism, capitalism or whatever. Unless you want to be a commie and take it by force, but that's a no-no for me ;D

Quote:
As for corporations, they are themselves a creation of the government and would not exist under true capitalism.


Private ones?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shares
Shares


Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
posted May 17, 2010 01:39 PM
Edited by Shares at 13:44, 17 May 2010.

Quote:
As for corporations, they are themselves a creation of the government and would not exist under true capitalism.

You forget a vital part here. People WILL work under bad conditions if that is the only option. As long as there's unemployed people that HAVE to make money some how it is possible to find a person willing to do ANYTHING to get on. There's lots of proof of this. Should I mention them or do you see them?

Quote:
I haven't been following much of this, but what's this talk about profit being useless? Profit is not only useful, it's necessary. Without profit you can't increase the standard of living. Nor can you grow the population while  maintaining the same standard of living. Without profit the economy stagnates.

For any type of expansion whatsoever, profit is necessary to facilitate that expansion. Expansion of economy basically translates to increased standard of living, whether that means having more or better stuff, more or better food, a larger home, advances in technology that make our lives easier/healthier, or anything else that improves our lives in some way. Profit is the excess that's beyond the current needs. Profit is what's reinvested to create newer, easier, better, or more than what we currently have.

Who ever said those were good things? We humans are allready taking to much out of the world and to many of us are powerlessly starving. 80% of the worlds resources are distributad among 20% of its people, so I guess we'll have to at least increase our profit by 400% (to 500% of todays) and then add some more to increased living standards and increased population. And on top of that we have to cut down on consumption due to the fact we for hundreds of years already have consumed too much.
Huh, I just lost all of the hope I had for a good future.


Right, and now to my actual post:
People seem to think that socialism is when the government have the power over companies. That socialism is all about the government. I'll tell you about how I see socialism. It is not that every person is the same. It's that every person has equal possibilities, at least when they start off. Then they from that point prove their worth.
Any way, my point is that socialism isn't that the government owns the companies. It's about removing the boundry of power between employers and employees.
If you happen to own a company and have 50 employees. You can take 90% of the profits. A lot of people see nothing wrong with this. The boss is supposed to have a high salary and have all the power.
Let's instead say you are two people working on a company. What if one of them decides that he should have 99% of the profits. Then it's suddenly wrong. The other person gets 1%, that's twice the ammount than in the first example.

Socialism is that every one in a company is a part of that company. Every one contributes to the company and should thus have a share of the profits, rather that than that some one who never even have set his foot in the company office gets all the money.

People also seem to forget that even though socialism mostly talks about the public good rather than the individual is that the individual is a part of the public.

Great, now I was reminded of how stupid most people are.

(Sorry if I'm stupid, I'm just mad at right side politics and people because they're acting so overly stupid here lately.)
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 17, 2010 02:44 PM
Edited by Fauch at 14:46, 17 May 2010.

Quote:
I haven't been following much of this, but what's this talk about profit being useless? Profit is not only useful, it's necessary. Without profit you can't increase the standard of living. Nor can you grow the population while  maintaining the same standard of living. Without profit the economy stagnates.

For any type of expansion whatsoever, profit is necessary to facilitate that expansion. Expansion of economy basically translates to increased standard of living, whether that means having more or better stuff, more or better food, a larger home, advances in technology that make our lives easier/healthier, or anything else that improves our lives in some way. Profit is the excess that's beyond the current needs. Profit is what's reinvested to create newer, easier, better, or more than what we currently have.



well, you are implying economy is necessary. and then it depends what you mean by economy. does it have to be as complicated as it is today? so complicated that it seems no one is able to solve the problems?
and maybe animals have no need to increase their standard of life? maybe we are the only species who always want more?

moreover, today it seems most of the profit is used to increase the standard of living of people who already have the most comfortable situation.

Quote:
Who ever said those were good things? We humans are allready taking to much out of the world and to many of us are powerlessly starving. 80% of the worlds resources are distributad among 20% of its people, so I guess we'll have to at least increase our profit by 400% (to 500% of todays) and then add some more to increased living standards and increased population. And on top of that we have to cut down on consumption due to the fact we for hundreds of years already have consumed too much.
Huh, I just lost all of the hope I had for a good future.

actually, I think it has been really bad for only one century. I suppose because of the industrialisation. without counting that industries are also massively used to produce weapons. wars have been extremly deadly the previous century. and I hope no one dares saying wars are good for economy and progress...

also, as far as I know, animals are not destroying the planet.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge


Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
posted May 17, 2010 02:53 PM

There's nothing noble in animals not destroying the world. They are just too dumb to do it. Never understand the fascination of green people with animals or even hatred towards fellow humans. And throwing death sentences and prophecies from their high moral horses. Animals, like bacteria, aren't intelligent and socially developed enough to make any affect on the world, good or bad. Reality isn't Lion King where the animals protect the circle of life.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
ohforfsake
ohforfsake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted May 17, 2010 04:32 PM

@Mvass
About banks: Yes, after all if it already was like this, there'd be no point in suggesting it.

@Fauch
I agree with your point, profit is not needed for the species to survive, at least not a the kind of profit we usually think about.
However they are, like the rest of us, in a circle of life, we're dependent on other living things to stay alive. One can make the argument that if there's not sufficient profit in relation to the given species and compare the 'power' of the species with other competitors, the entire species and not only the single individual, may in fact be in danger. One of the greatest goals, in my opinion, is to become independent of this circle of life. Sure there'll always be some kind of need of a minimum energy depending on the given function, that we'd probably never be independent of, but as long as we make it so that it's our choice all the way through, I'd say it's sufficient independence.

Profit, in itself, does not mean much. Yes profit like in Binabiks example does show its necessarity, but that's profit not in the amount of trade that can be done, but profit relating to the actual needs. I don't think that's the kind of profit Fauch is talking about.
If profit in the amount of trade increases without progress, which among others is what I think binabik refers to as profit in his example, then that profit have no value, because it's investing a lot of trade power into a world which does not increase in trade.
Trade power and trade must follow eachother or, I think, there will be inflation/deflation.

The good thing about the system of trade power, which is how I see capitalism, is that it allows for an easier and more succesful increase in trade itself, that is more ressources and better technology becomes available. Though that is only for what is meaningful work, i.e. work that actually creates this progress or is somehow influenced to do so.
The rest is to a large degree more of a question of how increased freedom in return means luxury work (people working for others luxury), which there's nothing wrong with, but in an equal society, my guess is that such type of work would become quickly automatic and progress would increase a lot, because all work would be focused upon progress.

@JJ
Life is what you make it. You may think it has no value due to actions may be completely determinable, that's up to you, but claiming from that life can't have value to anyone does not make it an objective claim.
Also, I don't completely understand your 'two ways of feeling good' or how it's relevant to the topic (I've a hard time understanding that post of yours), in my opinion you can seperate it to at least 3 ways:
I, You and We.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 17, 2010 09:41 PM

DF:
What do you mean, "what a wealthy man can do"? How much is "wealthy", anyway?

And actually, the amount of money that is passed from generation to generation is severely exaggerated.

Shares and DF:
I'm talking about corporations, not all businesses. A key feature of corporations is limited liability, which is definitely a government thing and would not exist under a truly free market.

Shares:
Quote:
Let's instead say you are two people working on a company. What if one of them decides that he should have 99% of the profits. Then it's suddenly wrong.
No, it's not. Provided that it's done non-coercively, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted May 24, 2010 01:19 AM

@JJ
Quote:
The opponent of socialism is (not capitalism but) egoism.



If by egoism you mean that I think that I am the only one who is entitled to the fruit of my labor, then sure. I do not think that anyone is entitled to one penny that I earn. Well, I have a moral obligation to support my family.

Let every man work and eat his own bread, not steal bread from the mouths of my children.

I always find it very interesting and revealing that the socialists in America do not redistribute their own fortunes to the poor.

I believe in a small government. I believe in charity. Charity is a person voluntarily giving and helping others, not the government stealing money and deciding who to give it to.

Fauch
Quote:
@making profit isn't useful.


Profit allows creation of more jobs, expansion of facilities, research and production of new products, ect.

@Mytical
Quote:
Because inheritently we are still animals.  Looking out for only number one.  That is why 'socialism' is bad, because it goes against that.


I disagree.

Socialism is all about ME, ME, ME. Socialists seem to think they have a right to take what others earn for themselves instead of earning it themselves.

A great many capitalists are very charitable givers. I myself gave over half my income to charity. Did the socialist Obama who earned over 5 million dollars last year to that. No, of couse not. What about Al Gore?  No, he bought another 9 million dollar mansion. Heh.

Clicky

Oh, and it is not the job of an employer to "care" about his workers, but most do. Most employers provide all sorts of benefits. An employee trades his time/work for an agreed upon amount of money.

Oh, how many employees "care" about the business they work for?

But yeah, a business is about profit. A business owner has to make a profit to stay in business. And all business are a risky proposition, especially in the early stages of the business. Most small busineeses that are started fail. Most small business owners spend far more than 40 hours per week working their business.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 24, 2010 02:25 AM

well, here, stress at work is called the disease of the century...
burn-out, turn over...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shares
Shares


Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
posted May 24, 2010 10:07 AM

Quote:
Socialism is all about ME, ME, ME. Socialists seem to think they have a right to take what others earn for themselves instead of earning it themselves.

More like taking from every one with out earning, and using it for things that either is good for those who are poor or what is good for every one.


Quote:
A great many capitalists are very charitable givers. I myself gave over half my income to charity. Did the socialist Obama who earned over 5 million dollars last year to that. No, of couse not. What about Al Gore?  No, he bought another 9 million dollar mansion. Heh.

Clicky


I don't even see how that is an arguement? Because there are charitable right side politicians, and non-charitable people on the left? I'm certain that there's plenty of right side dudes with lots of money that's not charitable, and a lot of people on the left side that are. Saying that a quality of a person is a quality of a whole group is very prejudiced. What's the difference from that and saying that all blacks are stupid. I know this because I met a black guy, and he was kinda stupid.

Quote:
Oh, and it is not the job of an employer to "care" about his workers, but most do. Most employers provide all sorts of benefits. An employee trades his time/work for an agreed upon amount of money.

Oh, how many employees "care" about the business they work for?

Yep, that's typical human logic. We have two sides and they both say: "Why should I care?! They don't care about me!". Thus ending up with a loop arguement that will not end until it changes, and it won't until it does.
If you end up with an employer that cares, I'm certain a lot of people where you work would change their minds.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Binabik
Binabik


Responsible
Legendary Hero
posted May 24, 2010 11:01 AM

Quote:
Oh, how many employees "care" about the business they work for?


I do, at least I do during the time I'm on their payroll. As an employee I have specific duties, but I also have a general duty which is to help make the company better. And I also have a third duty which I see as the most important. I have a duty to the customer. I always keep the customer in mind and try to design/build a good product for them. The above three are completely compatible with each other. As a matter of fact they are all different facets of the same thing.

One thing to keep in mind about a "company" is that a company is an inanimate object. A company is not capable of caring or not caring about people. A company is made up of people, and only the people who work there are capable of caring. People are people and there can be good ones and bad ones at all levels within companies. This is true whether you have a socialist or capitalist society. I mean hey, there are a lot of jerks out there, and some of those jerks can end up working as a manager, but I think you'll find a lot more jerks in jail than running a company.

There are so many people who seem to think of companies as somehow evil and inherently bad. They think that companies are out to screw the employees and exploit them. I've probably worked at 100 companies from the smallest with only a few employees to the largest in the world with over a million employees, and I have NEVER run across a company that was out to screw the employees and exploit them. I am NOT saying that companies like that don't exist, because they certainly do. I'm just saying that it's the exception, not the rule like some people seem to think.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 24, 2010 03:35 PM
Edited by Fauch at 15:38, 24 May 2010.

Quote:
A great many capitalists are very charitable givers. I myself gave over half my income to charity. Did the socialist Obama who earned over 5 million dollars last year to that. No, of couse not. What about Al Gore?  No, he bought another 9 million dollar mansion. Heh.

Quote:
I don't even see how that is an arguement? Because there are charitable right side politicians, and non-charitable people on the left? I'm certain that there's plenty of right side dudes with lots of money that's not charitable, and a lot of people on the left side that are. Saying that a quality of a person is a quality of a whole group is very prejudiced. What's the difference from that and saying that all blacks are stupid. I know this because I met a black guy, and he was kinda stupid.



you could take into account that many people can't afford to give to charity, and also that some rich people give to charity only to have a good image, it's a commercial move. like bill gates could give 1% of his fortune, the figure would be so high that it would seem incredibly generous, but for him it would be nothing.

Quote:
Oh, and it is not the job of an employer to "care" about his workers, but most do. Most employers provide all sorts of benefits. An employee trades his time/work for an agreed upon amount of money.

Oh, how many employees "care" about the business they work for?

well, many people have to do something which doesn't interest them so that they can barely survive, so it's easily understandable why they don't care. the few ones who care are the ones who are lucky enough to do what they like.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted May 25, 2010 11:18 AM
Edited by angelito at 21:08, 25 May 2010.

Quote:

Socialism is all about ME, ME, ME. Socialists seem to think they have a right to take what others earn for themselves instead of earning it themselves.
Wow...you really seem to know many things about socialism.

You seem to rather throw away all bread you and your family can't eat a day, instead of giving it away to those who need.

So capitalism is about "WE WE WE"?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 25, 2010 05:54 PM

yeah, it's a bit shocking that we waste that much food while other people starve.
like when you get served a portion so big that you can't eat it entirely, and what can you do with the remains? I doubt it will still be edible by the time starving people receive them.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted May 25, 2010 09:10 PM

Quote:
yeah, it's a bit shocking that we waste that much food while other people starve.
like when you get served a portion so big that you can't eat it entirely, and what can you do with the remains? I doubt it will still be edible by the time starving people receive them.
How about you pay 1 dollar less for your portion, get a little smaller portion, and send the 1 dollar to the starving family? You've lost nothing, but others gain...

That's how socialism (should) work(s).....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted May 25, 2010 09:12 PM

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in practice.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted May 25, 2010 09:52 PM

Well, sadly, that's not how CAPITALISM works either - you cannot put $1 less onto the plate because that $ is the restaurant owner's profit. There is no way to put $1 less food onto the plate without the plate being half empty, since usually the food isn't worth that much.
It would work only with expensive stuff, but not for the cheaper meals, and my experience is that the expensive restaurants  don't put much on the plate anyway...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Lexxan
Lexxan


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
posted May 25, 2010 09:54 PM

Has there been any Ideology that has Practice mirror theory exactly?

I guess we all know the answer to that.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted May 25, 2010 10:50 PM

Quote:
Unfortunately, that's not how it works in practice.
I know...and that's why it (still) fails....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0912 seconds